What on earth makes you think the recipe would get out there? Even with the existing system, Coke keeps that formula secret. The situation would continue in the IP-free environment we suggest. NDA’s would continue to exist, btw, there’s no problem with them.
don’t nda’s ncc’s make people a “slave”
people are keeped from using their own property as they please. if someone knows someone, but can’t make it public or sell it privately, the person is owned and can not make use of what that person knows.
someone knows the formula, if one that knows could be paid to give it away, that person could sell it. if the people that know are loyal, then it would not be a proplem but the company would have no recourse for someone that choose to use his knoledge to benefit another company.
Paying someone not to talk disclose information is a valid business contract. It’s an exchange. It’s not force. Thus, perfectly acceptable in a free context. It can also contain agreements for paying damages for talking. Last one I signed offered maximum damages of $500,000 / year for 5 years if I talked 
Paying someone not to talk disclose information is a valid business contract.
“Valid” on what grounds? Not any objective grounds, unless you’ve reconciled the fact/value dichotomy. And since it’s only subjectively “valid” according to the whims of the parties involved, then it’s invalid whenever a member values it as such—and nobody outside those involved in the contract have any relevance anyway.
Guys, this is a rare event. This is probably one of the only times I actually agree with hashem.
Remember it, as it may never happen again.
Kidding aside, I see guilds and trade unions as a way to enforce these contracts. In other words, if you want to remain a member of the guild, then you need to abide by the rules. While losing the status of a guild member may not be the worst thing in the world, how many of you would want to work with someone who can’t keep his word?
people are keeped from using their own property as they please.
It isn’t “theirs” to begin with.
Duly noted, gotlucky. Chalking up a big tally. One down.
@ John, I think cab21 was referring to the knowledge in their brains. It seems a pretty robust argument to say it’s theirs—it certainly isn’t anyone else’.
If they’ve signed a contract prohibiting them from releasing certain types of information, why would it not be enforceable?
Well hang on don’t change the subject. You were saying a person’s memories aren’t owned by him.
Wait a second. If you are referring to ideas and simultaneously holding that they cannot be owned as they’re infinite in supply (with which I agree), then in what sense are they that person’s property? Hence it isn’t their property to begin with. Thus the thrust of the argument is whether one can contract with another entity in a way that prohibits them from undertaking a given set of actions in order to receive whatever benefits the contract specifies. This isn’t a slave contract but a voluntary contract with specific terms for reimbursement. These aren’t slave contracts any more than a contract for performance of any sort is one. They’re contracts for non-performance of certain types of activity.
If you are referring to ideas and simultaneously holding that they cannot be owned as they’re infinite in supply (with which I agree)
We’re referring to the ideas of a specific brain. Far from being infinite, they’re an economic resource—scarce and controllable. To say the memories in a person’s brain are his doesn’t seem like a meaningful argument…
It doesn’t matter if they’re specific to that brain. Two different brains (or minds, rather) can hold the same idea at once without conflict in use occuring. That is the thrust of Kinsella’s argument.
A person’s memories and ideas are “theirs” in a very loose sense that they’re in their heads, perhaps even its “products”. To call it property, however, is to assume that the person in question has the exclusive right of usage over that property. Kinsella argues that because ideas can be held simultaneously without conflict that they’re not scarce in the sense that physical resources are and therefore property rights are not required for non-conflict-generating social interaction.
My point is that none of this is really relevant. A NDA isn’t so much about asserting ownership over an idea as it is about specifying non-performance of a particular action. Now it may be couched in terms of property over ideas in present arrangements but there is nothing in principle from such a contract being devoid of any such terms.
Semantics aside I understand what you’re saying. Hopefully, you understand what I’m saying.
The relevant issue here is whether a contract is “valid”. You’re saying it may be, I’m saying that what you mean is that the contract is valid subjectively—unless you’ve reconciled the fact/value dichotomy. In this regard, the contract holds no weight when any party decides to abandon it.
the trade secret would belong to no one or no company, so the trade secret is free for people to use if given access.
a trade secret is not property, and if only property can be stolen, then trade secrets can’t be stolen.
say it’s a performance contract for 5 million if i don’t perform, give me 6 million and i won’t perform.
if all i lose is some cash, i’ll simply still sell for a profit.
if the amount is sale plus %, good luck finding that, and what will it even look like with competative currency, someone can invent a currency where it only has value with a certain group and one has to be a part of that group for it to have value.
Yes, on objective grounds. The fact/value dichotomy has nothing to do with it. If a person controls themselves, which they objectively do, then whether or not to disseminate information is wholly within their power, and they can freely contract with another to not disclose information for a fee. Come on.
This has nothing to do with others outside the contract. I don’t know what you think I’m arguing about, but I’m talking about secret knowledge. An NDA is given to someone in advance of him receiving secret knowledge. With the NDA he agrees not to disclose the info given to him or else to pay a fine should he do so. That has nothing to do with other people, other people don’t know the secret.
It is valid because it is voluntary, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, is non-fraudulent, and within the capability of the contracting parties. That’s all I care about. The only subjectivity in there is what the contract should be about, and I don’t care. In principle any contract should be enforceable within those constraints.
Exactly.
You’re wrong. In a society without state protections of trade secrets, trade secrets would become actual secrets, as the name implies. Meaning only the company itself would know it and those to whom it reveals it.
Rothbard used the term ‘recipes.’ An idea is a recipe, like the idea of how to make something. True, it’s not property for it is not scarce. It cannot be stolent. But that doesn’t mean that if it’s not revealed to you that you can conjure it from air. Also, the transmission of idea is itself a service and can be charged for. Similarly, ideas can actually be scarce if only one person knows it. Scarce may not be the proper term for that. Um. Well. Say someone knew the cure for cancer. Many would be willing to buy it, but only he knows it. He can sell the idea upon first transmission, since only he knows it. He’s cornered the market on that idea because he generated it.
You seem to be saying that ideas can be scarce, and simultaneously saying that ideas aren’t scarce. Ideas require an origin, and to multiply they require effort and a medium of storage and transmission. The supply of a given idea can be expanded or contracted in very real ways. I don’t know what’s with all this talk about “ideas aren’t scarce resources”.
Also, like ice-in-the-summer is not the same economic resource as ice, so ideas-in-my-head are not the same economic resource as ideas. The ideas in my head are scarce and controllable by only me, and are therefore property.
Regarding a contract, my point was merely that its validity is determined by the minds of people, not by the natural laws of chemistry and physics and contracts. As I would expect, you brought up enforcement. So my point in bringing up outside parties was that the contract, being an exchange of ideas between several parties, has no objective validity by definition to the extent that any given members fail to commit, and that no outside parties have any objective authority to enforce it upon someone who doesn’t commit. They may enforce it, and society may value that, but the reason contracts have any percieved validity is subjective, it has nothing to do with the laws of physics or chemistry.
Ideas aren’t scarce, but that doesn’t mean everyone knows them immediately. Idea transmission is a regularly purchased product (school, books), so the form those ideas take can be sold as a scarce good. But the idea itself is a genie in the bottle. Its transmission value is in proportion to the number of people that know it and would value it if they did know it.
Thus, if one person knew the cure to cancer, it would be a very valuable thing to him and someone would likely pay a great figure for it. Perhaps the second could pay the first not to transmit the idea anymore, and as part of that agree to pay set damages should he do so. I think that should be perfectly enforceable should he then violate the agreement.
I really don’t know why you bothered to bring up that point tho–it’s not on topic–except that you have this weird axe to grind about a minor philosophical issue.
Are you attacking all contract as voidable without consequences, or just NDAs?
Ideas aren’t scarce, but that doesn’t mean everyone knows them immediately.
I think that’s a ludicrous contradictory thing to say, but I’m willing to hear you out. Please elaborate, while addressing the following: like ice-in-the-summer is not the same economic resource as ice, so ideas-in-my-head are not the same economic resource as ideas. The ideas in my head are controllable by only me, and are therefore my property. Your example of a book doesn’t disprove that—even books are scarce resources. Is water not scarce to starving African kids simply because they don’t have immediate access to it?
I think that should be perfectly enforceable
Precisely. Subjectively valid.
I really don’t know why you bothered to bring up that point tho–it’s not on topic
It was in response to an assertion you made, so it’s off topic to the extent that you were off topic when you made the statement. To bring it on topic, I was originally here to point out an answer to the OP which doesn’t require violence and ridiculous myths about “validity” of contracts.
Are you attacking all contract as voidable without consequences, or just NDAs?
I think that’s a false dichotomy or a red herring so I’m doubting your comprehension of my argument. Whether consequences happen have nothing to do with whether a contract is objectively valid. I can simply imagine (and have real world examples of) solutions that don’t require contracts or violence. Regarding NDA’s, as with any other contract, I think they have value to those who value them. By definition, as soon as someone fails to follow through, the contract ceases to exist to that extent—which brings us to another point regarding something you said:
A book is not an idea any more than the record of a contract is the contract itself. They are symbols for transmission of ideas. The contract, as with all ideas, is subjective, and ceases to exist when and to the extent that some party ceases to maintain it.
How is it ludicrous or contradictory? Once an idea known it’s not scarce. You can give it away infinitely without diminishing your knowledge of that idea. But you first have to learn the idea. It’s a rather simple concept.
Ideas in the abstract are just a concept. Ideas in your head are an economic recipe, but the scarce resource is the head that knows the idea, ie: people.
Your head is your property. But you don’t control an idea unless you’re the only one who knows it, and the extent of your control is your decision to transmit that knowledge or not. After you’ve transmitted it, you have no control over what the other does with it.
That’s my point, books are scarce. But the ideas in them are not because they’re infinitely copyable.
In the sense that everything is subjective. Sure. Whatever you wanna say, Hashem. My point was that it doesn’t violate any principle which is known to be contrary to contractability.
I don’t think anyone’s claiming there’s such a thing as an objectively valid contract. However, I think that within the corpus of libertarian ideals, that some contracts are valid and some are not. Why you decided to strip that libertarian context out of my statement I have no idea, except that, again, you continue to grind this silly axe of yours over a minor philosophic point. I made that statement in the same sense that I have made the statement that slavery contracts would not be valid contracts.
The unstated and assumed portion there is “…given basic rights.” The assertion then is not one of objectively valid contracts but whether anything in the proposed contract would violate the principles of basic rights.
It doesn’t cease to exist so much as it has now been broken, and a tort is then possible.
I would disagree that it “ceases to exist”, rather I would say that it’s failed to be fulfilled. Even a completed contract does not “cease to exist.”
If you agree to sell me a barrel of fish for $25 and I give you $25 and you break the contract and walk away, the contract doesn’t magically disappear. You’ve now stolen $25. Objectively stolen. Not subjectively.
All your subjectivist-fetishes disappear in the face of an objective reality that is perceived subjectively*.* Doesn’t mean the objective isn’t there.